Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 206 of 2001
PETITIONER:
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BALASUBRAMANIAM
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 20/02/2001
BENCH:
M.B. Shah & S.N. Variava.
JUDGMENT:
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
Leave granted.
Heard parties.
This Appeal is against an Order dated 10th March, 2000.
By this Order a detention Order dated 7th April, 1999 has
been quashed on the ground that in the Affidavit of the
Sponsoring Authority it has been mentioned that the Detenu
was involved in six cases and that in the detention Order it
has been stated that the Detenu was involved in four
occurrences in four different cases. It is held that the
Detenu had been given copies of documents in respect of one
case only even though the Detaining Authority was bound to
give copies in all the six cases. It is held that thus the
Detenu had been denied an effective opportunity to defend
himself. On this ground the detention Order was set aside.
It is correct that the Detaining Authority has to apply
its mind before issuing a Detention Order. However, it is
equally important that the Court, hearing a Habeas Corpus
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
also applies its mind before it quashes a Detention Order.
Undoubtedly, in the Affidavit filed by the Sponsoring
Authority reliance has been placed on six cases. However,
the Detaining Authority has not placed reliance on six
cases. This itself shows that the Detaining Authority had
applied its mind and not gone just by what was stated by the
Sponsoring Authority.
In Para 2 of the impugned Order it is stated as follows:
"2. In sub-para 2 of paragraph 3 of the grounds of
detention it is stated as follows: "He has committed the
above mentioned offences in Sobanapuram, Koppampatti,
Manamalai, Anaikkal which are rich in sandalwood and other
species and wild life."
The detenu is stated to have been involved in four
occurrence in four different cases. ."
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
From the statement extracted above it has been concluded
that there were four occurrences in four different places.
However, the same Detention Order also sets out as follows:
"On 16-3-99 on a reliable information, the Forest Range
Officer, Perambalur and incharge of Thuraiyur Range, formed
a special party led by him, proceeded at about 5 PM to
conduct forest offences raid at Sobanapuram Section,
Koppampatti beat, Manmalai Reserve Forest Jee road."
Thus it is clear that Sobanapuram is a Section,
Koppampatti is a beat, Manmalai is a reserve forest and
Anaikkal is a name of the road. A careful reading shows the
Detention Order does not refer to four occurrences in four
different places, but is only mentioning that an offence had
taken place in Sobanapuram section, Koppampatti beat,
Manamalai forest and at Anaikkal road. Had the High Court
applied its mind properly, it would have realised that there
were no four occurrences in four different places.
Admittedly, the Detenu has been given copy of the documents
in the adverse case relied upon.
In our view, there has been total non-application of
mind on the part of the High Court. The impugned Order of
the High Court cannot be sustained and it is hereby set
aside.
However, the Detention Order was of 1999. The same had
been quashed by the High Court in March 2000. The period of
detention is over. In our view, this is not a case where
the Detenu should be made to surrender to undergo the
remaining period of detention.
The Appeal stands disposed off accordingly. There will
be no Order as to costs.
..J.
(M. B. SHAH)
..J.
(S. N. VARIAVA)
February 20, 2001.